Madam Chair, this is an issue I tried to address before with the Minister, and it is in relation to what we present here and the facts and the information and the documents should be relevant and tied into what we are doing here. This options document is exactly that. It is not the official report that was compiled by the steering committee, the Keewatin committee that was approved and accepted by this Assembly. What the Minister is referring to is a document that compiled some options that we put together to help the Members of the committee to arrive at a decision. I do not think it is realistic to be referring to that document. The document the Minister should be referring to is the document that was approved and accepted in this House and which was dealt with by Cabinet. There are many options that are included in that document. It is just like a laundry list. The final analysis and the final report stated that the status quo would remain until 1999. That we would work toward a direct resupply, keeping in mind the status quo is staying in place until 1999. That would mean the spirit of that agreement or that decision was that the new government of Nunavut would have the opportunity to devise and decide on what they wanted. That was the first point that was made in the conclusions, that it would stay status quo. There is a point there where it indicates that in 1998, the contract would end with Esso and Associates regarding the tank farm in Churchill. It was also indicated that we would look at possibly extending that to get to 1999.
Madam Chair, the other points that were mentioned, conclusions that were brought forward, was that the hydrographic mapping would continue as it was important and valuable to the communities if the decision was made by the new government to move forward on this recommendation. We stated very clearly in the report, we could move toward direct supply. Hydrographic mapping was to take place, the consultation cost benefit analysis and more importantly, that full consultation take place with the communities. The Minister admitted there has been consultation. It is obvious it is not satisfactory because we would not have the Keewatin Chamber of Commerce along with the mayors of Arviat, Baker Lake and other communities saying well wait now guys, just hang on a second here. We would like to study this more.
Again, the understanding was, and I believe it was made very clear in a statement that was put out by the Chamber of Commerce that it was status quo until 1999. My question to the Minister, Madam Chair, is if the report that was accepted by Cabinet and by this House accepted a report and the recommendation, the status quo remain until 1999, why at this point are we moving forward on a project prematurely? Thank you.